Ratliff, John

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The Congress of Neurological Surgeons (CNS) Leadership Institute developed the first structured leadership program designed specifically for neurosurgeons. Led by the experts in neurosurgery, health care administration, and business, the program provides formal leadership training and mentorship aimed at advancing neurosurgeons' professional development at local, regional, national, and international levels. METHODS: The CNS Leadership Institute offers 2 curricula tailored for junior and senior faculty. Training begins with assigned readings, webinars, and online lectures that establish essential leadership principles. Core learning occurs during 2 in-person courses featuring interactive lectures, feedback sessions, and a longitudinal leadership project guided by national mentors. Program outcomes were assessed through a 40-question survey of alumni evaluating training effectiveness, skill application, and career advancement. RESULTS: Since 2016, 195 neurosurgeons have completed the CNS Leadership Institute. Among the 77 survey respondents, 70.1% reported significant professional advancement (new leadership role or job transition), and 64.8% directly attributed their advancement in skills and insights acquired through the program. Overall program effectiveness was rated 4.4 of 5, and the mean likelihood-to-recommend was 8.95 (95% CI: 8.70-9.20), yielding a Net Promoter Score of +63 (95% CI: +49 to +77). Alumni have assumed prominent roles including 16 Residency Program Directors, 3 Department Chairs, 1 Vice Dean, 4 Service Line Leaders, 13 CNS Executive Committee members, and over 100 committee or editorial board appointments critical to the specialty. CONCLUSION: The CNS Leadership Institute equips neurosurgeons with structured leadership training, mentorship, and practical tools to enhance their effectiveness as leaders. Survey results confirm that the program has a measurable impact on participants' career trajectories and professional growth. This initiative provides a reproducible model for cultivating the next generation of neurosurgical leaders and advancing the specialty's capacity for strategic, transformational leadership.

The intersection between radiomics, the computational analysis of imaging data, and machine learning (ML) may lead to new developments in the diagnosis, prognosis, and management of diseases. For spinal tumors specifically, applications of these fields appear promising. In this educational narrative review, we provide a summary of the current advancements in radiomics and artificial intelligence (AI), as well as applications of both fields in the diagnosis and management of spinal tumors. We also provide a suggested workflow of radiomics and machine learning analysis of spinal tumors for researchers, including a list and description of commonly used radiomic features. Future directions in the field of radiomics and machine learning applications to spinal tumors may involve validating already proposed algorithms with larger datasets, ensuring that all computational applications to patient care maintain high ethical standards, and continuing work in developing novel and highly accurate computational techniques to enhance patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVE The American Spine Registry (ASR) is a collaborative effort between the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and the American Association of Neurological Surgeons. The goal of this study was to evaluate how representative the ASR is of the national practice with spinal procedures, as recorded in the National Inpatient Sample (NIS). METHODS The authors queried the NIS and the ASR for cervical and lumbar arthrodesis cases performed during 2017–2019. International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision and Current Procedural Terminology codes were used to identify patients undergoing cervical and lumbar procedures. The two groups were compared for the overall proportion of cervical and lumbar procedures, age distribution, sex, surgical approach features, race, and hospital volume. Outcomes available in the ASR, such as patient-reported outcomes and reoperations, were not analyzed due to nonavailability in the NIS. The representativeness of the ASR compared to the NIS was assessed via Cohen’s d effect sizes, and absolute standardized mean differences (SMDs) of < 0.2 were considered trivial, whereas > 0.5 were considered moderately large. RESULTS A total of 24,800 arthrodesis procedures were identified in the ASR for the period between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2019. During the same time period, 1,305,360 cases were recorded in the NIS. Cervical fusions comprised 35.9% of the ASR cohort (8911 cases) and 36.0% of the NIS cohort (469,287 cases). The two databases presented trivial differences in terms of patient age and sex for all years of interest across both cervical and lumbar arthrodeses (SMD < 0.2). Trivial differences were also noted in the distribution of open versus percutaneous procedures of the cervical and lumbar spine (SMD < 0.2). Among lumbar cases, anterior approaches were more common in the ASR than in the NIS (32.1% vs 22.3%, SMD = 0.22), but the discrepancy among cervical cases in the two databases was trivial (SMD = 0.03). Small differences were illustrated in terms of race, with SMDs < 0.5, and a more significant discrepancy was identified in the geographic distribution of participating sites (SMDs of 0.7 and 0.74 for cervical and lumbar cases, respectively). For both of these measures, SMDs in 2019 were smaller than those in 2018 and 2017. CONCLUSIONS The ASR and NIS databases presented a very high similarity in proportions of cervical and lumbar spine surgeries, as well as similar distributions of age and sex, and distribution of open versus endoscopic approach. Slight discrepancies in anterior versus posterior approach among lumbar cases and patient race, and more significant discrepancies in geographic representation were also identified, yet decreasing trends in differences suggested the improving representativeness of the ASR over the course of time and its progressive growth. These conclusions are important to underline the external validity of quality investigations and research conclusions to be drawn from analyses in which the ASR is used.

OBJECTIVE Recently, 2 surgeon rating websites (Consumers' Checkbook and ProPublica) were published to allow the public to compare surgeons through identifying surgeon volume and complication rates. Among neurosurgeons and orthopedic surgeons, only cervical and lumbar spine, hip, and knee procedures were included in this assessment. METHODS The authors examined the methodology of each website to assess potential sources of inaccuracy. Each online tool was queried for reports on neurosurgeons specializing in spine surgery and orthopedic surgeons specializing in spine, hip, or knee surgery. Surgeons were chosen from top-ranked hospitals in the US, as recorded by a national consumer publication ranking system, within the fields of neurosurgery and orthopedic surgery. The results were compared for accuracy and surgeon representation, and the results of the 2 websites were also compared. RESULTS The methodology of each site was found to have opportunities for bias and limited risk adjustment. The end points assessed by each site were actually not complications, but proxies of complication occurrence. A search of 510 surgeons (401 orthopedic surgeons [79%] and 109 neurosurgeons [21%]) showed that only 28% and 56% of surgeons had data represented on Consumers' Checkbook and ProPublica, respectively. There was a significantly higher chance of finding surgeon data on ProPublica (p < 0.001). Of the surgeons from top-ranked programs with data available, 17% were quoted to have high complication rates, 13% with lower volume than other surgeons, and 79% had a 3-star out of 5-star rating. There was no significant correlation found between the number of stars a surgeon received on Consumers' Checkbook and his or her adjusted complication rate on ProPublica. CONCLUSIONS Both the Consumers' Checkbook and ProPublica websites have significant methodological issues. Neither site assessed complication occurrence, but rather readmissions or prolonged length of stay. Risk adjustment was limited or nonexistent. A substantial number of neurosurgeons and orthopedic surgeons from top-ranked hospitals have no ratings on either site, or have data that suggests they are low-volume surgeons or have higher complication rates. Consumers' Checkbook and ProPublica produced different results with little correlation between the 2 websites in how surgeons were graded. Given the significant methodological issues, incomplete data, and lack of appropriate risk stratification of patients, the featured websites may provide erroneous information to the public.